D.Ramagopal vs S.Kasiraj
2024 Latest Caselaw 20091 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 20091 Mad
Judgement Date : 24 October, 2024

Madras High Court

D.Ramagopal vs S.Kasiraj on 24 October, 2024

Author: T.V.Thamilselvi

Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi

                                                                                   S.A.No.653 of 2010


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS


                                                       Dated : 24.10.2024

                                                           CORAM:
                                  THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                                     S.A.No.653 of 2010
                                                 and C.M.P.No.9440 of 2024

                     D.Ramagopal                                                     ...Appellant
                                                            Vs.

                     S.Kasiraj                                                     ... Respondent

                     Prayer :Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil
                     Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.68
                     of 2003 on 29th September 2003 by the Principal District Judge at
                     Coimbatore, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Principal
                     District Munsiff of Coimbatore in O.S.No.1625 of 2000 on 23.04.2002.


                                       For Appellant   : Mr.A.Chelliah, Senior counsel
                                                          For Mr.A.Ahmed Rahilal
                                        For Respondent : Mr.K.R.Samratt
                                                JUDGMENT

The above second appeal arises against the judgment and decree

passed in A.S.No.68 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge,

Coimbatore, confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.1625 of 2000

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

on the file of the Principal Disrict Munsiff, Coimbatore.

2. Before the trial Court, the respondent herein/Kasiraja/ filed a suit in

O.S.No.1625 of 2000 for permanent injunction, directing the defendant not

to cause any interference in the suit property. Further, originally the suit

property belongs to the appellant's father viz., R,Dhamodarasamy Naidu for

him valid consideration of sale deeds dated 15.07.1998 and 26.05.1999

since, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The defendant contended that the respondent/pliantiff has no right

over the suit property and the alleged sale deeds as sham and nominal since

the plaintiff is the son-in-law of the defendant's father, but the Court below

found that based on the sale deeds, the plaintiff is title over the suit property

and the same was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein.

4. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant has preferred appeal an

A.S.No.68 of 2003 wherein, the First Appellate Judge had independently

analysed the facts and evidence, confirming the findings of the trial Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. Challenging the concurrent findings given by the Courts below, the

defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant

herein/defendant to receive the additional documents as follows:-

1. Deed of Assurance from Kasiraj to Thiru Dhamodarasamy dated 26.05.1999.

2. Deed of Assurance touching the extension of time dated 25.05.2000.

3. Death Certificate of Thiru Dhamodarasam dated 08.01.2008 otained from the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation.

4. Legal Heir Certificate dated 19.03.2008 obtained from Revenue Thasildar Coimbatore North

He further submitted that the plaintiff/respondent herein has no right

over the suit property and findings given by the Court below is erroneous

one. Hence, he prayed to allow this second appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that two

documents were strongly objected by the respondent stated that it is an

unregistered document and created one and unlawful gain by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

defendant/appellant.

8. But admittedly, the plaintiff was son-in-law of the

Dhamodarasamy Naidu, thereafter, in the family some dispute arose the

plaintiff and daughter of the Dhamodarasamy Naidu and further in order to

avoid further comlication, the document was executed by the

Dhamodarasamy Naidu.

9. Therefore, this Court is inclined to remand the matter before the

trial Court. Issue notice to the parties concerned, and giving opportunities